Appeal No. 2001-1654 Page 5
Application No. 08/445,584
The examiner characterized Duermeyer as teaching a method of detecting
an antigen-specific antibody of class IgM, IgA, IgD, or IgE. According to the
examiner, Duermeyer differs from instant claim 17 only “in failing to exemplify the
use of an additional substance to inhibit the binding of IgG to the antigen and to
the antibody on the solid phase.” Examiner’s Answer, page 4. The examiner
states that Duermeyer teaches “an immunological reagent composition”
comprising three components, and teaches that “the immunological reagent
composition may be combined to form a single reagent.” Examiner’s Answer,
page 4.
We agree with Appellants that this characterization of Duermeyer
somewhat overstates the relevance of the reference. Specifically, we agree with
Appellants that Duermeyer also fails to teach the “simultaneous incubation”
limitation of the claims. Duermeyer states that the assay is performed in at least
two steps: first, “serum . . . is brought into contact with an insolubilized antibody
against the antigen specific IgX concerned,” then “[a]n incubation is subsequently
performed with an antigen . . ., after which a further incubation takes place with a
labelled antigen binding fragment of an antibody” against the antigen. Column 2,
lines 28-39. Duermeyer’s working example makes clear that these steps are
separated by washings. See column 4, line 51 to column 5, line 30. Although
Duermeyer states that the antigen and labeled antibody fragment can be
complexed beforehand (see column 2, lines 61-66), this embodiment would still
involve two incubation steps separated by a wash. Therefore, we do not agree
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007